I heard Senator Charles Grassley on the Weekend Edition Sunday show of National Public Radio. I expected that he would buckle, and at least leave the door open for "universal background checks" as a way to appease the statists and move us toward universal gun registration. I was wrong.

Senator Grassley surprised me by standing up to the MSM bullies. He did not say "we have to do *something*. He did not say "for the children*. He was smart. He did not fall for their implied assumptions that more unconstitutional infringements mean more safety.

He was willing to look at making sure that felons who attempted to purchase guns illegally in the current system, were forwarded to the FBI for prosecution. This was an indirect and effective way to say that we are not even using the system we have, so why make an even bigger system to do less? If pushed, he could have mentioned that there were only 77 prosecutions out of 72,000 background check denials in 2009, and they resulted in only 32 convictions.

He was willing to look at ways to get more information on people with mental problems into the FBI database, but worried about privacy concerns.

He was not willing to support "universal background checks". He addressed the intrusive nature of such a system by mentioning that he could not support requiring a father to submit to a background check to give a rifle to his son. He mentioned that background checks would be ineffective, because they would not stop the theft of firearms, as happened in Newtown. Lastly, he said that we have to treat the Second Amendment with as much care as we treat the First Amendment. He said that we would like to put limits on violent movies, but even though we know they have an effect on young people, we do not, because of the First Amendment, and we have to treat the Second Amendment with the same level of respect.

This was brilliant. He also stated that he could not support an assault weapon ban, because we already tried that, and it did not work from 1994 to 2004.

I was and am impressed. It was gratifying to see a senator stand up to the MSM. It was doubly impressive because he is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Good for him! He makes some very good points. The system we have is not being used efficiently so why bother making more laws? Prosecution of Federal firearms violations is down under 0bummer. If he really cared a rat’s patoot about ‘victims of gun violence’ he could call his AG and tell him to do his job instead of arming terroristic drug cartels.

3
posted on 02/10/2013 1:21:14 PM PST
by TigersEye
(The irresponsible should not be leading the responsible.)

"He was willing to look at ways to get more information on people with mental problems into the FBI database, but worried about privacy concerns."

Imagine another quarter of the population going nonpolitical. The gun grabbers will then easily outlaw the rest of the population. Republicans fought against conservative family/fathers' rights voters during the '80s, '90s and since. See what happened as a result of those betrayals?

Naw. Never mind. It's no use. I'll just get a lifetime supply of popcorn.

8
posted on 02/10/2013 1:46:27 PM PST
by familyop
(We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)

That’s all well and good. There will be no meaningful gun control legislation, as there are too many red state Democrat senators up for re-election. So his defense of the 2nd amendment doesn’t really matter.

I just can’t stand faux conservatives who support crony capitalism as much as the Democrats do.

I think that’s pretty good. I hope we have a good group. I see a lot of Dems helping us out here, being up for election in ‘14. There sure is a lot of pressure on the GOPe to “compromise” and go for either/or both “universal background checks” and “small magazines.”

15
posted on 02/10/2013 2:28:52 PM PST
by Cyber Liberty
(Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)

I didn’t say you were lying. But some people who know perfectly well they didn’t endorse anyone still claim they did, and that is a lie. I merely said you were repeating it.

BTW, if Reid had lost, Chuckie Schumer would probably be Majority Leader now. Imagine how hard he would be pushing gun control. I think Reid and a lot of Senators from “purple states” would just like it all to go away.

19
posted on 02/10/2013 3:01:46 PM PST
by Hugin
("Most times a man'll tell you his bad intentions, if you listen and let yourself hear."---Open Range)

BTW, if Reid had lost, Chuckie Schumer would probably be Majority Leader now. Imagine how hard he would be pushing gun control. I think Reid and a lot of Senators from purple states would just like it all to go away.

All true, but if other conservatives had gotten elected as well, Schumer would be minority leader. But we didn't get crap last round, losses everywhere and in '10 as far as the Senate is concerned. I think we had good candidates, but the GOPe was set against them. I wonder why?

20
posted on 02/10/2013 3:14:36 PM PST
by Cyber Liberty
(Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)

The part them mentioned at the end is extremely important. Grassley is the senior Republican on the Judiciary committee.

For years it was back and forth between Orrin Hatch and Patrick Leahy, but with Arlen Specter being booted out, Hatch was “promoted upstairs” as chairman of the Finance Committee, so he could not also chair Judiciary, even though he is still on the committee.

Hatch long supported the status quo on the death penalty, but Grassley seems to be far more inclined to speed things up.

Grassley is also a firm believer in punishing criminals that use guns, but not in restricting the gun rights of honest citizens.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.